Lunar photo-enhancements reveal alien civilization evidence.

...

For this view, I rotated the image shown above 23 degrees to the left then made a sectional crop.

The cropped view has also been darkened.

Do you see anything recognizable in this image?




Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by wmd_2008

edit on 4-12-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

I see it as a crater, the light plus the shadow make a round shape. A rock with its shadow cannot form such a round shape. Ok it's possible that it is a rock since it is so different from the surrounding craters.

reply to post by ArMaP


How the shadow falls and is it where I showed or where you showed depends on how high or low on the horizon the Sun is, or simply put in what angle towards the surface the sun rays appear.

Then there is nothing unusual with the Shadow of the rock falling on the north and the shadow cast by the craters being on the south as seen on this picture where up is north. That means the Sun is from the direction that I would call South of this picture and that is how the shadow of the rock is pointing north.

Exactly because of the angle that the crater is, that part is shadowed and the open part is lit, this is why unlike the rock;'s shadow the shadow of the crater appears on the south.

You've never seen such craters? This is just a disection of the ground to see how crater formed at an angle towards the surface looks like

reply to post by Imtor


???

A rock with its shadow cannot form such a round shape.

What? An object will cast a shadow that is representative of its shape. And, the boulder in the Lunar photo has that irregular bump, which is also seen in the shadow.

Look at these examples:



The "length" of the shadow will vary depending on the angle of the light source, naturally. And, the shape of the terrain the shadow is cast on will have effects as well. A perfectly flat surface versus a sloped one, in any direction, or a surface that is undulating in some way.

reply to post by ProudBird


That's what I said... and I agreed it could be a rock since it looks quite differently from the nearby real craters.

The bright white color could be some picture defect, I don't see alien bases, look for the alien clues elsewhere

Originally posted by Imtor

Originally posted by wmd_2008

edit on 4-12-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

I see it as a crater, the light plus the shadow make a round shape. A rock with its shadow cannot form such a round shape. Ok it's possible that it is a rock since it is so different from the surrounding craters.

reply to post by ArMaP

 

How the shadow falls and is it where I showed or where you showed depends on how high or low on the horizon the Sun is, or simply put in what angle towards the surface the sun rays appear.

Then there is nothing unusual with the Shadow of the rock falling on the north and the shadow cast by the craters being on the south as seen on this picture where up is north. That means the Sun is from the direction that I would call South of this picture and that is how the shadow of the rock is pointing north.

Exactly because of the angle that the crater is, that part is shadowed and the open part is lit, this is why unlike the rock;'s shadow the shadow of the crater appears on the south.

You've never seen such craters? This is just a disection of the ground to see how crater formed at an angle towards the surface looks like

It cant be a crater the shadow is the opposite side compared with all the other craters around it and if you look at other images posted in this thread it on the same side as all the other small rocks and boulders!

Apart from that LOOK at all the other craters they are perfect circles compared to the rock!

See here

Hey arianna you may be right I zoomed in on one of your images and saw a building !


You wont believe this....






Thats exactly what you are doing!

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Hey arianna you may be right I zoomed in on one of your images and saw a building !


You wont believe this....

Thats exactly what you are doing!

edit on 6-12-2011 by wmd_2008 because:
(no reason given)

..........................................................................................
I saw this same silly "debunking tool" being used on another forum several months ago. Some people will go to unbelievable lengths in trying to "dispute" situational facts.

So much of what is on this thread, like this, is a sad waste of everyone's time.

reply to post by arianna


Why do you keep on posting images as if we are the subject of some test?

You were asked several times to point what you see and to explain it, you have even said that you would do it, but you keep on posting images without any explanation.

Now I'm beginning to feel a little disappointed, although we have different points of view I thought that you were honest in your idea of doing serious scientific study.

reply to post by arianna

..................................................................................
arianna, I just want to add to the fact that others do see the Moon features you have tried to present in this thread. I commend you for your tenacity in your responses to the never ending comments of so many "skeptical denying debunkers".

In your initial posts, I too just did not see anything unnatural either. But as you produced the additional photos showing the increased detail, then it became clear that there are, in your photos, visible structures throughout the pics. And I really don't care whether the boulders rolled anywhere, or not. The fact of that part doesn't particularly matter in my opinion.

I am certainly not a "moonie", but if these are actually there, then we can be sure our gov already know about them. And, if so, then our gov would also have people in place to dispute any findings, such as yours. Just say'in!

i am glad we have people like you here that knows how to get the best detail out of photos that are, at times, not providing the truth of the detail,

Originally posted by rdunk
reply to post by arianna

 

..................................................................................
arianna, I just want to add to the fact that others do see the Moon features you have tried to present in this thread. I commend you for your tenacity in your responses to the never ending comments of so many "skeptical denying debunkers".

rdunk --

Do you also (along with arianna) see these numerous circular objects as things sitting on top of the Moon's surface, rather than being craters?

If you do, I'm not sure how you can agree with arianna that they are not craters. The shadows definitely show that they are craters (concave) and not objects sitting on the surface (convex).

reply to post by rdunk

....then it became clear that there are, in your photos, visible structures throughout the pics.

You can't be serious?

Did you review the thread, and the photo that ArMaP showed, of a satellite photo of Earth, and sized to approximately the same resolution, and therefore familiar objects.

Those familiar objects (such as automobiles, etc) that are clearly discernible.

There simply is NO comparison. It is just jaw-dropping, when looking to those images, that anyone can see something "artificial", much less "structures".

I also invite anyone interested to review the photos from the LRO camera of the Apollo landing sites. These clearly show artificial structures, specifically the Apollo Lunar Module Descent stages.

Originally posted by rdunk
arianna, I just want to add to the fact that others do see the Moon features you have tried to present in this thread.

If you see them, could you please point to some and explain what you see?

As arianna, apparently, doesn't want to do it, it would be good to get at least one person explaining what they see.

But as you produced the additional photos showing the increased detail, then it became clear that there are, in your photos, visible structures throughout the pics.

This is where I see things in a different way. The images altered by arianna do not have increased detail, they have less details, but the "surviving" detail is more noticeable, because it's exaggerated by the processing.

I am certainly not a "moonie", but if these are actually there, then we can be sure our gov already know about them.

If.

I have followed this thread for awhile and even with all of the image manipulations and so called 3D effects, all I have noticed are craters and rocks as pointed out by some members on this thread.

The Arizona State University's caption under the original image says it all to me:


plains southwest of Rowland crater

Many boulder trails are found on the lunar crater walls and basin massifs. Some of the trails are smooth and nearly straight while others are curvy or gouge into the surface. In many cases by following a boulder's trail you are led back to its point of origin, useful information for a future geologist sampling otherwise unreachable points. Image width is 600-m across, north is up, and the boulder in the lower left-hand corner is 15-m across, unnamed 15-km diameter crater southwest of Rowland crater [NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University].
source: lroc.sese.asu.edu.../archives/131-Bouncing,-Bounding-Boulders!.html



And I ran across this same argument with the same so called 3D effects on another site by a person named Timewarp. It didn't seem to draw much attention though.

source: alienanomalies.activeboard.com...

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by rdunk
arianna, I just want to add to the fact that others do see the Moon features you have tried to present in this thread.

If you see them, could you please point to some and explain what you see?

As arianna, apparently, doesn't want to do it, it would be good to get at least one person explaining what they see.
............................................................................................................

Hello ArMaP! The discussion on this thread has been mind boggling. Over 20 pages now! I think arianna has done a good job of responding, to the extent responses could be viable and or informative.

As usual, no one is going to know for sure until we put more boots on the ground on the Moon, exactly what is really there. Dontcha think that it is a little "funny", that we (the U.S.) pretty much stopped our exploration of our nearest neighbor, the moon??? There just has to be a deeper reason for doing that, than just a little budgeting stuff. And that reason very well could be right before our eyes, in this data presented by the OP.

As I said this has gone way overboard anyway, so, ArMaP, I am not going to exactly do what you suggest. What I am going to do for you, is repost a piece of one of the OP's "ringed photos", with a little more multiplication, for you to look at again, to see what "you can see". There are many anomalous looking objects identified by the OP's rings. But, who in the heck can know what these anomalies each actually are????? Nobody!!! They are on the Moon!!!!!!

It would seem that if one takes the time to look closely at even this piece of the OP photo, one should see a number of pretty-artificial-looking objects, within the OP's rings.

Thanks for your time!

arianna's full ringed photo was originally posted on page 6 of this thread.

reply to post by rdunk

Most of those objects circled in green that arianna says look like structures built on top of the ground are actually concave craters.

Arianna's over-enhancing by increasing the contrast has destroyed the subtle gray scale variations that were the craters' shadows, and left behind an image that has an artificially stark contrasts between light and dark areas. It's no wonder why arianna can't see those objects as craters anymore.

rdunk -- do you think those objects circled in green are craters, or objects that look like structures sitting on top of the surface?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

..........................................................................
In this photo, looks like surface structures!

reply to post by rdunk


Well if everyone on this thread looks at ALL the threads you have started they can see your are as delude and confused as arianna is when it comes to look at these type of images.

Originally posted by Imtor
reply to post by ProudBird

 

That's what I said... and I agreed it could be a rock since it looks quite differently from the nearby real craters.

The bright white color could be some picture defect, I don't see alien bases, look for the alien clues elsewhere

The bright white area is a washed out highlight due to the exposure time of the shot obviously some areas are more reflective than others if you expose for the darker areas the lighter areas are overexposed, if you expose for the light areas the darker areas are underexposed anyone with an interest in photography understands these things.

Most people on here that have an interest in photography and there are many on here know what clues to look for to understand what they see in an image, but it seems some who claim to have a background in imaging should brush up on the basics again. (arianna and rdunk!!!)

My apologies to ArMaP for not replying but over the last two weeks I have been busy on other projects and commitments. In future, I will apply text to some of the images indicating what I see. There are no tests being applied here but I would be very grateful and appreciative if members would examine the images very carefully to see if they recognize any of the shapes or objects showing in the enhanced views.

The 'forced' enhancement procedure I have applied to the images is deliberate and necessary in order to penetrate the layer of 'moondust' that prohibits recognition of surface objects in the published original.

I have been involved in photography and image processing for over fifty years therefore I should know what I am reviewing in the images. Also, I am getting a little tired of some members who keep maintaining that all there is on the surface is as described when it is plain to see from the enhanced versions that the details contained in the description are incorrect. If these members wish to carry on with a closed-mind approach that is their perogative. The 'dashed' lines are not boulder trails and what appears to be 'craters' are not craters. This has been established by viewing the enhanced close-up views where it can be seen that the 'trails' and 'crater' shapes are giving the appearance of being built structures.